Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

I thought this might be of interest and good for a discussion point, this is taken from Sensei Darren Friend in an article on Aikido in the June edition of Blitz magazine. Sensei Darren Friend and his wife Sensei Peggy Woo run Aikido Yoshinkai in the State of New South Wales in Australia.

"Among Aikido practitioners there are conflicting thoughts as to the suitability of the first strike in a defensive orientated martial art. Some may suggest that it goes against the character or ethos of Aikido. Within Yoshinkan Aikido, however, the first strike is well embedded in the basic syllabus and is taught from the beginning, as it is seen as an important part of aikido's self defence package.
The greater philosophical question is not whether to strike or not, but at which point has the attack begun? It can be argued that defusing the attack early not only gives the defender greater options, it also puts limits on the attacker, nullifies their intent and limits the escalation of violence"

Utterly ridiculous. Why does it even need discussion? If you cannot initiate movement then you cannot even begin to learn to control or ultimately control your attacker. I would just laugh at someone who said such. Indeed, I have.

The late Kawahara Yukio, former Aikikai shihan for Canada, used to say that nage initiates. I generally imagined that - once there's been a decision that uke is going to attack, nage offers an initial movement to force (so to speak) uke to attack in a certain way...

I suspect that it's along the lines of "The best defense is a good offense."
sic pacem, para bellum (I think that's latin for "for peace, prepare for war"..

I suspect that it's along the lines of "The best defense is a good offense."
sic pacem, para bellum (I think that's latin for "for peace, prepare for war"..

I'm currently reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich -- specifically, in the chapter leading up to the Anschluss. In the author's analysis, German industrialists and military had eagerly gone along with Hitler's plans for expanding the military -- quite happily so, as it feathered their own nests -- and then were appalled when, in November 1937, he declared his intentions to actually use the military capability that they had built for him. Perhaps it's just the influence of this reading that makes me view "sic pacem, para bellum" as simplistic in the extreme, if not simply flat-out wrong.

Aikido does not carry a ethos. It is an education. The philosophy of people who practice aikido is varied and that philosophy is the ethos of the education.

I think when we talk about this kind of thing, it is important to understand that our personal philosophy crafts our perspective and that perspective may not be the same as others. I think the problem of aikido is when loud voices declare what is aikido. This article seems to be a declaration of one perspective of aikido. To Rupert's point, I think part of aikido is the freedom of movement; to limit yourself to reactionary movement seems counter-intuitive to the art (since it is limiting your freedom), but I understand there are many people who strongly feel that you cannot do aikido until somebody does something to your first.

O Sensei used to teach his curriculum with shite initiating the technique. If my aikido is based upon "intent leads mind, minds leads ki..." then the origin of my attack is logically the same origin as my response, intent. Right now, I am of the mind that the attack begins when my opponent intends to attack me. So for me, whether I am initiating or receiving, my intent leads everything.

To Walter's point, my perspective is that I am always prepared to move however I want. While typically a conversation killer, I am not sure Germans (and even many within the party) shared Hitler's real intentions and aspirations, nor would I cast aspersions about a strategic perspective because of a individual who clearly never intended for "peace" as we like to think of it. I think his intentions were probably more along the lines of "For war, prepare for war. But lie about it until no one can stop you" - I don't know the Latin for that phrase. I think your criticism is better-aimed at the naivety of the population in their consumption of that fraud, not the perspective Hitler used to veil his plans. My dad grew up in Skokie, IL, where a lot of Germans moved before and after the war. In their older age, when they would talk about it, a lot of these immigrants expressed true regret about being beguiled by that administration. Which kinda leads back to Rupert's comment that we [should not] need to argue the point because a greater population is not knowledgeable about such things...

While typically a conversation killer, I am not sure Germans (and even many within the party) shared Hitler's real intentions and aspirations, nor would I cast aspersions about a strategic perspective because of a individual who clearly never intended for "peace" as we like to think of it. I think his intentions were probably more along the lines of "For war, prepare for war. But lie about it until no one can stop you" - I don't know the Latin for that phrase. I think your criticism is better-aimed at the naivety of the population in their consumption of that fraud, not the perspective Hitler used to veil his plans. My dad grew up in Skokie, IL, where a lot of Germans moved before and after the war. In their older age, when they would talk about it, a lot of these immigrants expressed true regret about being beguiled by that administration.

Opinions differ about that "beguilement". TRAFOTTR is explicitly talking about highly-placed military officers who actively participated in a program to develop offensive capability in service to a regime that had already announced its expansionist dreams. While it is true that offensive capability has at least the potential (speaking generically) to be used defensively or preemptively, there was not even a fig-leaf pretense of a threat that would justify this. Given that, "beguilement" is a difficult sell.

"...The greater philosophical question is not whether to strike or not, but at which point has the attack begun? It can be argued that defusing the attack early not only gives the defender greater options, it also puts limits on the attacker, nullifies their intent and limits the escalation of violence"

I like this. I get the impression the aversion to striking first comes from what O Sensei said about people attacking him (and the universe) being defeated already. I personally try to adhere to the notion that I do not want to strike first because once I do, it is most definitely "on," and de-escalation becomes a lot harder. However, this doesn't mean I'm unwilling to "sucker punch" someone I am certain will attack me. The trick there, of course, is being able to recognize the intent in others.
I realize I'm no expert, but my mindset goes like this: I apply my intent, extend my ki to connect with the potential attacker; if my connection is sufficient, I will simply follow the flow, which may just lead me to extend through the centerline into that person. My biggest dilemma has to do with the lack of awareness for ma'ai on the part of the potential attacker. Many people have a different idea of how ok it is to get in someone's face, and don't realize that for some, it is an invitation to get hit. The problem with simply hitting anyone who seems aggressive is that once things have reset, they may decide they were unfairly attacked. Some people aren't really aware of where their emotions are leading them and may decide they were just going to talk until you suddenly hit them (some people can rationalize anything, after all), even if their lower brain functions were primed to attack.
So where that leaves my mind is that since everything must be taken on a case by case basis, I prefer to think of myself not as having a philosophy of striking first, but of having the initiative. It seems like it would keep my options more open in the long run.

Quote:

Mary wrote:

"sic pacem, para bellum" as simplistic in the extreme, if not simply flat-out wrong.

I agree. I've known too many "tough guys" to believe this. Reading The Adventures of King Arthur, too, seems to reinforce this idea since so many knights go into the fight out of notions of manliness only to find they just slew their brother or some similar tragedy. They're so prepared to do battle that it takes little to tip it in that direction. It seems that when the hammer is in hand, you see every nail as threatening to stick up.

"The Romans had a proverb which said: Si vis pacem para pacem, si vis bellum para bellum – If you want peace prepare for peace, if you want war prepare for war. US President Richard Nixon, followed by few other presidents afterwards, reversed this Roman dictum by saying: Si vis pacem, para bellum – If you want peace prepare for war..."

If I know exactly when and how my partner is going to attack, the attack will be much easier to handle. There exists a critical distance at which he has to either attack or back off in order to protect himself.

If I know exactly when and how my partner is going to attack, the attack will be much easier to handle. There exists a critical distance at which he has to either attack or back off in order to protect himself.

Sure, and the distance, the maai, is part of your "military intelligence", if you will. Credible threat or not? Maai's a huge part of that.

I'm currently reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich -- specifically, in the chapter leading up to the Anschluss. In the author's analysis, German industrialists and military had eagerly gone along with Hitler's plans for expanding the military -- quite happily so, as it feathered their own nests -- and then were appalled when, in November 1937, he declared his intentions to actually use the military capability that they had built for him. Perhaps it's just the influence of this reading that makes me view "sic pacem, para bellum" as simplistic in the extreme, if not simply flat-out wrong.

Speer (the author of the "The Rise and Fall") was part of that machinery so his account should be taken with a grain of salt. Or two.

Speer (the author of the "The Rise and Fall") was part of that machinery so his account should be taken with a grain of salt. Or two.

How so, David? Shirer was a journalist, not a German industrialist or military officer. He was not part of the German rearmament, the "prepare for war" part of the saying. In writing a historical account of the events of those days, he noted that the highest ranking German military officers, who had most actively prepared for war in the face of no credible threat, were quite taken aback when Hitler announced his intention to use those preparations for their intended purposes. What "grain of salt" is needed? Where was he wrong?

How so, David? Shirer was a journalist, not a German industrialist or military officer. He was not part of the German rearmament, the "prepare for war" part of the saying. In writing a historical account of the events of those days, he noted that the highest ranking German military officers, who had most actively prepared for war in the face of no credible threat, were quite taken aback when Hitler announced his intention to use those preparations for their intended purposes. What "grain of salt" is needed? Where was he wrong?

Ah my bad - sorry.

I was reading "The Rise and Fall" but thinking "Inside the third Reich" which is a fantastically interesting read (as long as salt is readily available).

Dear Demetrio,
Salve Demetrio!! Strapping on my toga, and pondering on your words,I would suggest that some of our veritable readers are not familiar with Latin.How about a translation for the plebs?Vale, Demetrio.

A good friend of mine asked me why I practiced as if everything was irimi (entering).
IMHO, the sooner I can observe and orient to the others intent, the sooner I can decide what action to take and take it.
If I am not the one who initiates first connection/contact/movement (not necessarily a strike), I have not trained hard or intelligently enough.

Lynn Seiser PhD
Yondan Aikido & FMA/JKD
We do not rise to the level of our expectations, but fall to the level of our training. Train well. KWATZ!

Dear Demetrio,
Salve Demetrio!! Strapping on my toga, and pondering on your words,I would suggest that some of our veritable readers are not familiar with Latin.How about a translation for the plebs?Vale, Demetrio.

Hi Joe
Try this.

They therefore who wishes for peace prepare for war; he who desires victory, the soldiers must diligently; He who hopes for the results of the fight with art, it is not the case. No one is to challenge, no man dare to offend, whom he understand he was about to fight the upper and Flavius ​​Vegetius Renatus say, Epitome of the art of war, 3. Preface, ed.

The Latin quote provided by Demetrio was translated by Henry using Google Translate or something similar (I pasted the text into google translate and got the same - um - verbatim...

I suspect that the google translate tool misses some of the semantics of the original Latin, which if I think back nearly 50 years to ninth grade, leaves a lot to be understood or read between the lines.

I think the sense of it is - if you want to live a peaceful existence, make it so nobody's going to be foolish enough to attack you. In the Aikido/MA perspective of this, I used to read of people who would/could walk into a room and defuse a "situation" by being there and being confident, somehow letting people know that it wouldn't be a good idea to "attack"...

Kinda like why Japan chose not to invade the US during WWII, because there's an American with a rifle behind every blade of grass (I may not have the quote exactly right, and I don't care enough about it to waste energy and time on it looking it up).

I'm afraid I haven't owned a copy of Rise and Fall of the Third Reich since some time in the 1970s so I can't remember much of the detail. Hitler was a psychopath who charmed enough Germans of the day, in troubled times, to follow his warped path.

[quote=Walter Martindale;337727]The Latin quote provided by Demetrio was translated by Henry using Google Translate or something similar (I pasted the text into google translate and got the same - um - verbatim...

I was going to ask my doctor to translate this for me, but I can't read anything he writes, so I used Google translate.